A Poll Regarding the IT Rules Set

[Ron Earp]

This leaves you with the only option of itemizing what part are superfluous and I agree that we will not agree where to draw the line.

Sure, not everyone will agree exactly. But we might be able to compromise and come closer to what folks wish than we currently are. As seen here on this thread a couple of members went for items I didn't list - glass and horns. But I imagine if the membership were allowed to remove the other items they'd be happy, that is, the subset that wants to remove superfluous non-race car bits would be happy.

In the past I've heard arguments against removing some of the items listed. They are typically along the lines of "we can't stop there", "it'll be the tip of the iceberg", and "it is the core of IT". I question that line of reasoning. They mean to say that we can't make a rule that says "washer bottles and heater cores my be removed from IT cars" and fashion the rule so that is all that gets removed? That rule, that simple statement and allowance for removing two items on an IT car is going to destroy IT? Or,maybe that rule change not in itself is going to destroy IT but it is going to lead to the downfall of IT? Hmmm.

We race in a class that allows open ECUs, sectioning of strut housings, any shocks/struts, spherical bearings, and other expensive race parts but we have to keep the stock washer bottle and heater core. The scientist in me doesn't agree with a rules set with this non-congruence.

[Greg Amy]

"[I]n our constant club-racer quest to make our cars faster, safer and 'more reliable' we ha[ve] pushed for rule changes that simply accelerated the rate of entropy. Every class of production racing does this, of course, until it finally brings on its own demise." - Peter Egan

[Ron Earp]

"[i]n our constant club-racer quest to make our cars faster, safer and 'more reliable' we ha[ve] pushed for rule changes that simply accelerated the rate of entropy. Every class of production racing does this, of course, until it finally brings on its own demise." - Peter Egan

I think that quote was rather recent wasn't it? Seems I remember it from the last couple of years.

[Greg Amy]

I think that quote was rather recent wasn't it? Seems I remember it from the last couple of years.

Prolly; I read all his columns. And I had posted it on the Sandobx quotes earlier this summer.


I look upon this situation exactly how I look upon current political events: I say let 'em get what they're asking for, 'cause it's the only way they'll eventually realize it ain't what they really want.

Unlike politics, however, something like this isn't easily "un-done" with another election; it is usually resolved via forming a completely new category and letting the old one die off (e.g., GT, then Production, then Improved Touring, then maybe "Modified Touring" anyone...? How's "Showroom Stock" doing since they allowed all those changes...maybe we'll call it "Touring" instead...?)

Go ahead, do it. But don't come a-cryin' when you get exactly what you're asking for...

[Knestis]

...Go ahead, do it. But don't come a-cryin' when you get exactly what you're asking for...

There it is.

When Krik refers to V.2, he just means us re-writing what was already there in a much more concrete fashion making every effort to insert definitions and eliminate subjectivity. ...

I don't *think* that I coined that term, because it's not representative of how I see it.

K

[Bill Miller]

You are missing the point Ron. You are relatively new to this and have not witnessed the destruction of classes with well intentioned changes. A class evolves slowly with little changes that are "for the good" of the class. Then somehow another group wants more and the changes go into overdrive. Example:

Open ECU
Going National
Another new process when most are unsure of process V1
Then just a few posts up we get no dash,lights,windows, etc.


Get the picture, everone likes IT then procedes to F it up with too much change and it is no longer IT. You guys just started ITR which was a big deal in a "no new classes" SCCA, and now you want to just drive what was built off a cliff.

The washer bottle is more symbolic than substance in that it has always been that line in the sand. You have known me long enough to know that was not personal towards you, but more of a general statement.

PS. Missed you wusses in the rain today at Barber.:026:

Steve,

I'm going to throw the BS flag on that one. You know, as well as pretty much everyone else here, that the 'no new classes' thing refers to National classes (unless of course, the PtB want one). Topeka could pretty much care less what's done at the Regional level. Trotting that out, is a TOTAL red herring, and is really pretty weak.

I haven't voted in this poll, but if the ECU situation is any indication how things will go, I'm REALLY not comfortable w/ throwing all that other stuff out. To me, the ECU rule is a textbook example of how to dork it up.

[shwah]

I voted no within Ron's boundary conditions.

I have no problem whatsoever removing horns and washer bottles, and no problem replacing wires.

That is about as far as I would be comfortable.

[shwah]

I should post this in every forum: There is NO NEW PROCESS. When Krik refers to V.2, he just means us re-writing what was already there in a much more concrete fashion making every effort to insert definitions and eliminate subjectivity. Other than the FWD adder going from a fixed number to a percentage, there are no major changes.

I just assumed that there was a 'new process' because of the comments by ITAC about changes to fwd factors. Well that and the fact that some cars have changed classes at weights incongruent with the field, yet are 'about right to the process'.

[pfcs]

"I have no problem whatsoever removing horns and washer bottles, and no problem replacing wires"
Funny how that statement reflects how the conservative ruleset kept me in the corral. I'll confess-I replaced the heavy OE horn in my ITB Volvo with a very light early Beetle one; and when I built my hand-controlled Golf I re-located the ignition coil to where the washer bottle had been so I could reach it, but used a latex leg-bag in it's (now cramped) place. The dual use thinking has informed IT philosophy for many years and served us well. It has been why the class was so unbelievably popular (50+ ITB cars @Glenn one time=their own race group), a stock vehicle easily turned into a capable racecar. I'm grateful to have raced in the golden age of club racing and sad to see IT dissappearing into the mists of time. You guys don't get it-maybe that's not your fault-perhaps you had to have been there circa 1985. Trying to realign the cars to equalize them by weight-that's a good thing, but everything that recently preceded (remove pass seat, gut headliner, Nascar bars/gutted doors, and the big ludicrous one: open ECUs!) I consider obscene. But why should I care? It's over, the inmates have taken over the asylum. Camelot.
Those who forget are doomed to repeat the past. The original Cal Club IT rules (circa 82) were the 1963 production car rules.
phil

[RacerBowie]

I voted no, but only because there wasn't a FUCK NO option.

Seriously: LEAVE I T ALONE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Let's get the stuff the ITAC sent through done, and then let's not touch it for 2 years.

[D. Ellis-Brown]

I'm sure that this is not a surprise to most who know me, but I support in concept the proposal that Ron Earp is presenting. Please do away with "Non Value Added Stuff". Washer Bottle, Horn, Heater Core, and the like. Permit those items that do not add value to "race cars" to be removed. I presented a similar concept a while back by proposing the removal of stuff that is "Non Value added", Ron the same folks chimed in and make the same statements to my recommendations also. Ron "Thank you" for getting the ball rolling.
By the way, No, I do not think that IT is "Broken", but it is time to remove some of the dings and dents and maybe touch up the paint, or at the least give it a good wax job. While I do not agree with all that the CRB, nor the ITAC have done, I beleive that they have tried their level best to keep IT at the top of the SCCA Class ladder for regional racing, and that is where I want it to stay. Thank You, David Ellis-Brown

[Greg Amy]

Please do away with "Non Value Added Stuff"...Permit those items that do not add value to "race cars" to be removed.

Way Coolness!

I suggest that the following list - by no means all-inclusive - add zero value to a "race car":

- Stock suspension links ("real" race cars have fully -adjustable suspension).
- Stock suspension pickup points (make them MacFaggot strut cars handle!)
- Stock brakes ("real" race cars have "racing brakes", using "racing rotors" and racing calipers".)
- Stock engines (ever seen a "real" race car with only 1/2-pt compression bump and stock crankshafts...? Me neither.)
- Stock transmissions (c'mon!! "Real" race cars have "Hewland" or "Tremec" or "Xtrac" molded in the case, and all the "real" race cars I watch on TV have sequential gearboxes.)
- Stock body panels (hey, carbon fiber's where it's at, baby! Plus, they're a s**t-ton cheaper than going to the local dealer to get replacement - and it makes it TONS easier for working on the "real" race cars!)
- 8-point cages (Hah! DTM cars have that ship-in-a-bottle thing going on. Anyone want to tell them they're not driving "real race cars"?)
- Stock chassis (GT got smart on that one a looong time ago. Crap, as long as we're adding points in the cage, what in the hell do we need that stock sheet metal for?? We can pretend, though, by making sure everyone uses the stock roof.)

I'm sure they're are comparable ideas out there, just waiting for the opportunity! Can't wait for the new ruleset based on this to come out...got my arc-welder ready to go!

GA, not-so-tongue-in-cheek with this one...

[spawpoet]

It's simply ridiculous that we can run a Motec, but can't remove the washer bottle. There are items that can be removed that everybody would agree would have NO negative impact on the IT rule set. In terms of rule set verbage, and interpretation of that verbage, remove is much simpler to control than replace, or substitute. There is a huge difference between the items Ron is talking about, and things like brakes, engines, and cage or suspension mounting points. The difference is black and white. IT is just a little more threatened by the ECU situation than the triviality of the items on this list.

[Greg Amy]

The difference is black and white.

As is the removal - or non-removal - of a washer bottle.

If we are to follow your logic to its conclusion - which is to say, anything lesser-tech than MoTEC should be allowed to be removed/changed - then I suggest my list is even lesser far-fetched than I initially imagined it...



And, trust me, if we go down this road you can be assured I've got a 25-yr list of things I've wanted to change in Improved Touring that I will submit in a heartbeat...the washer bottle will be the least of your concerns.

[Ron Earp]

It's simply ridiculous that we can run a Motec, but can't remove the washer bottle. There are items that can be removed that everybody would agree would have NO negative impact on the IT rule set.

You'd think that would be true.

But each time someone has brought this topic up somebody "goes Greg Amy" and starts talking about suspension points, cages, and a lot of things that weren't mentioned.

A=removal of washer bottles and heater cores
Z=moving of suspension points, throwing the IT engine rules in the trash, etc.

Why if someone brings up A opponents assume we'll go to Z? That is to say, if we do A then Z WILL happen?

[Knestis]

... There is a huge difference between the items Ron is talking about, and things like brakes, engines, and cage or suspension mounting points. ...

Not to Greg, there isn't. Why is his longer list of allowances wrong and Ron's shorter list right?

Why is Kirk's shorter list (the current status quo) wrong and Ron's longer one right?

...Why if someone brings up A opponents assume we'll go to Z? That is to say, if we do A then Z WILL happen?

Because the rules-makers can't be consistent if they approve your wish list and (for example) David's wish list that includes a few more things. David can - quite reasonably - say, "Ron got his. I just want mine. Tell me why, if someone brings up E, opponents assume we'll go to Z?"

K

[spawpoet]

Under my logic the ECU would be stock. What's black and white is the difference in allowing people to swap ECU's (I'm against) because it clearly ups the "build level" of a car vs. removing a washer bottle which in truth doesn't really raise the "build level" of the car. Ron's whole list is inconsequential to rules creep in a substantive manner. That's the operative concept here. I understand the fear of rules creep, but that list really doesn't threaten anything. Some of the things added within this thread could, but not what's on Ron's list

[Ron Earp]

Because the rules-makers can't be consistent if they approve your wish list and (for example) David's wish list that includes a few more things. David can - quite reasonably - say, "Ron got his. I just want mine. Tell me why, if someone brings up E, opponents assume we'll go to Z?"
K

Do we use a different ITAC or rules making process when we talk about washer bottles? We must.

Look, you've got no problem telling someone they can't run their AWD car. Why not telling someone "We've made all the allowance we are going to. You can remove washer bottles and heater cores but too bad on the other stuff."

[spawpoet]

Not to Greg, there isn't. Why is his longer list of allowances wrong and Ron's shorter list right?

Why is Kirk's shorter list (the current status quo) wrong and Ron's longer one right?



Because the rules-makers can't be consistent if they approve your wish list and (for example) David's wish list that includes a few more things. David can - quite reasonably - say, "Ron got his. I just want mine. Tell me why, if someone brings up E, opponents assume we'll go to Z?"

K

Kurt, I see a difference in a rule written with "remove" in it vs "replace". Apply "remove" to anything on Greg's list, and see if the car still works. What we are talking about is truly superfluous items and their removal. I understand what you are saying. Some guys want more than others, but I think there is a core group of items we can "remove" that in truth mean nothing.

[Knestis]

Never mind.

This comes up about twice a year and - I think because the tenure in IT of those involved in the conversation gets shorter each time - we slide a little closer to these things happening.

If I'm the only voice in the wilderness, don't let me stop you. But time WILL prove that the fear is well founded - I am absolutely positive. You'll just have to stay in the category 25+ years to see it happen, like I've seen it happen.

K